Menu
▾
▴
#21 Request to create SPMS tools for peer-reviewing IPAC papers
On behalf of the chair of the OC of IPAC17, I submit the following ticket to the kind attention of the JACoW Board of Directors.
It is requested to prepare, on the SPMS platform, a tool for peer reviewing a subset (N=200) of the papers submitted to IPAC17, for their publication on a journal which shall be identified within September 2016. This is intended to be a test which, if successful, should be extended at following IPACs to a larger number of papers, following the agreement of the other regions.
We call this subset of peer-reviewed papers “Subset1”. All other papers, which shall not be peer-reviewed, are called “subset2”.
Draft procedure proposed (open to discussion).
- In due time before the abstract submission deadline, the opportunity of peer-reviewing a subset of IPAC papers will be announced on the IPAC17 web-page. It will be explained that this opportunity will be offered to the first 200 submitted papers, for which the authors express their interest of being peer reviewed (on a first-come first-served basis). A short version of the peer-reviewing procedure will be shown on the web-page. Include options for: nominating paper for peer-review on the conference registration page.
- Meanwhile EPS-AG and IPA17 OC will setup a scientific publication board (selected perhaps within the OC), called SPB in the following, with a chairperson, in order to follow up the peer-reviewing procedure.
- At the abstract submission deadline, mainly for statistical and forecast purposes, authors will express their intention to opt for peer-reviewing or not, within the proposed rules. In any case the selection of the papers to be peer-reviewed will be done later, at the time of paper submission.
- Reviewer selection. At the time of abstract submission, authors expressing their intention to apply for peer-reviewing, will be asked (or will be assumed) to volunteer to be peer-reviewer. At this stage, they must indicate for which classifications or sub-classifications they are available (or, by default, they may be assumed as available for the same classification of the paper/s that they submitted). (The same request will be made to members of the OC and SAB, to be decided how). Include option to volunteer as referee in the SPMS. .
- In the time lap between the abstract and the paper submission deadlines, the SPB will make a list of available reviewers, broken down per classification (or sub-classification) among those who have volunteered. The SPB will bear the responsibility of choosing enough experienced reviewers. Sufficient seniority of reviewers may be ensured by adding a box, where volunteers confirm to something like: “I have at least 3 years of professional experience in the accelerator field after my highest academic degree”. The reviewers’ names shall be made available on the SPMS web-page (select to whom this will be visible! Restricted view), as a list of referees.
- Subset 2 of papers (not to be peer-reviewed) will have a paper submission deadline, to be decided by the IPAC17 OC, which we call Date 2. Subset 2 shall follow the typical IPAC paper submission procedure. Participants who will opt for peer-reviewing shall have to submit their contribution (Subset 1) within Date 1. We tentatively propose that Date 1=Date 2 – 2 weeks.
- The SPMS shall have to select automatically the first 200 papers (in order of time of paper submission and if submitted within Date 1), for which the authors opted for peer-reviewing, and will generate a list of them. Authors of Subset 1 shall have to be promptly informed of the selection results. Authors, who applied for peer-reviewing but were not among the first 200, shall be notified that they belong by default to Subset 2 and will be published on JACoW following the typical rules.
- Within Date 1 + 2 days, the SPB shall have to couple papers and peer-reviewers, using the SPMS (decision process to be decided). The SPMS shall have to match papers and referees. We assume in the following that 2 reviewers shall be attributed per paper, though this has not been decided yet.
- Within Date 1 + 3 days, papers shall be sent to reviewers for their analysis (automatic selection?). Rules and recommendations for peer-reviewing shall be sent to reviewers on this occasion too. The SPMS shall channel peer review feedback from referee to editor to author and the other way for two iterations (at 2nd iteration: decision only).
- Within Date 1 + 7 days, peer-reviewers shall have submitted their review on the SPMS. The result shall be: approved; rejected; pending (and then sent back to authors for changes).
- Failing reviews shall have to be handled by the SPB, in fashions to be decided.
- Within Date 1 + 9 days, the SPB shall have seen the results of this phase of the reviewing process, made the synthesis of the opinions of the two referees per paper, provided a reply to the authors. If approved, the paper enters Subset 1. If rejected, the paper enters Subset 2. Authors falling in both categories shall have to be notified of the peer-reviewing process result. If pending, the paper has to be sent back to the authors together with the peer-reviewing result (filtered by the SPB).
- Within Date 1 + 11 days, pending papers have to be re-submitted on the SMPS and automatically sent to the reviewers.
- Within Date 1 + 13 days, the reviewers shall submit their final decision on the papers which they peer-review, either approve or reject. For reasons of efficiency and the limited duration of this lean reviewing process only one re-submission can be accepted.
- Within Date 2, the SPB chair shall notify, via the SPMS, the final decision to authors. According to the final decision, papers will enter either Subset 1 or Subset 2 of conference papers. Possible claims against these decisions shall have to be submitted to the SPB chair, who shall have the unappealable final word. (It is advised not to advertise the appeal opportunity, so as not to widespread it too much…!)
Related
I am working on a estimate.
Last edit: Matt Arena 2016-07-11
I have a few questions.
1) How will the "nomination" of a paper on the registration page work and how will that differ from authors opting for a peer-review?
2) "8. Within Date 1 + 2 days, the SPB shall have to couple papers and peer-reviewers, using the SPMS (decision process to be decided). The SPMS shall have to match papers and referees. We assume in the following that 2 reviewers shall be attributed per paper, though this has not been decided yet."
SPMS has a built-in function to assign papers to referees. It attempts to evenly distribute papers to referees. Will this be acceptable?
3) How much of the workflow regarding Date1 + N days needs to be built into SPMS or will the SPB review the status reports on SPMS at the appropriate times?
On behalf of Giovanni Bisoffi
Hello Matt, I try to answer the questions.
peer-review on the conference registration page" is from a collegue in
the working group. The way I understood it is simply: at the abstract
submission deadline (for forecast purposes) and at the paper submission
deadline (the important one), the author will tick a preference on the
registration page ("paper submission" web-page, guess is more
appropriate...) so that papers will be split in the two categories,
Subset 1 and Subset 2, opting for peer-reviewing or not.
authors agreeing to peer-review are coupled to the same classification
of papers to be reviewed) I think the built-in function for automatic
assignment would be very useful.
the SPB and its chair should have a predefined time window to check
these assignments; be able to change them at his/her discretion.
Afterwards, the process should be as automatic as possible. It should
be followed up by the SPB (e.g. check how did the referee work or the
revision work and who did not) but with the least necessary number of
actions possible.
I enclose hereafter the comments by the other members of the working
group. Sorry if I do not summarize them, but I am in a week vacation
with little time fo connections.
Many thanks,
Giovanni
Mike Seidel.
In my opinion your answers are fine. We should leave the details of the
technical implementation to them. For question 3 it might be necessary
to define a number of states for the papers which the SPMS monitors, for
example:
1: review requested, 2: referee pairing completed, 3: inquiry sent out,
review pending, 4: second review pending, 5: paper accepted, 6: paper
declined, fall back on default Jacow publication.
Of course this needs to be thought out carefully, possibly more states
are needed (e.g.: conflict, decision by SPC pending etc.).
Anyway, the state of the process should be monitored in SPMS, automatic
sending of emails to referees and authors could be supported. But again,
the experts know that probably better than we do.
Regards, Mike.
Ralph Assmann.
I fully agree with Giovanni's answer and Mike's addition. No further
comments on this by me. Just one remark: the time Iimits mentioned
should be variables in case we need to adjust later, based on feedback
or experience. I am sure it will be implemented like this but better to
be sure.
Last edit: Ivan Andrian 2016-07-19
I have made progress on this request. The SPMS now recognizes “partial” refereeing as opposed to the previous Yes/No option and allows users to request refereeing. I also set the maximum papers for review to a system variable so smaller conferences can use it as well but specify a small maximum. I’m currently working on a display/report for all papers where peer review is requested. From there, the administrator will initiate the referee assignment process.
I may have questions later as the request contains options for implementation for example
“At the time of abstract submission, authors expressing their intention to apply for peer-reviewing, will be asked (or will be assumed) to volunteer to be peer-reviewer. At this stage, they must indicate for which classifications or sub-classifications they are available (or, by default, they may be assumed as available for the same classification of the paper/s that they submitted).”
My plan is to design the assignment process as a series of option for the administrator. Given SPMS is already setup to accommodate refereeing the administrator can easily add referees manually. However, there is now a “button” to automatically add referees based on those requesting peer-review (as stated in the previous paragraph). This will save the administrator a lot of time and manual entry. I will include additional “buttons” to assign papers to reviewers, send email reminders, etc.
Any clarifications on the requirements (such as the one quoted above) is greatly appreciated
Hello Matt. My aplogies for a late reply: I had it ready immediately, but found some issues with this site, now I solved it with Ivan's help.
Sure what you are proposing sounds good and in agreement with the request. I am not familiar with the SPMS options: I assume from what you write (your first paragraph) that you previously (or by default) distinguished already refereed papers from papers needing no referee process, while what you are doing now is that you are inserting the refereeing option. Correct? if so, fine.
Fine also your last paragraph, provided that the assignment of a paper to a referee is not fully automatic. Our idea is that an author should volunteer for refereeing, but the assignment would be done by the SPB and its chair, later, and they could for example assign a paper refereeing to a member of the SPB itself, just to make an example. So at some stage we should build up an official list of referees, from which the SPB will choose. Assigning e.g. a maximum number of papers to an individual referee (n=2?)
One piece of news, which was proposed within our working group in the last days, is the following. From discussion with the publishers and their publication policy, it is likely that we shall be able to accept papers, which have already had an internal refereeing done by the laboratories themselves. For example, if empowered in this sense, I could declare that a paper from a collaborator of mine has already been refereed and such paper would not need any additional refereeing process whatsoever. We are still discussing this point, but it is likely that we would like it to be implemented. Better to tell you now, I think, before it is too late. Kindly let us know if you need additional details and what is the last timing for providing such a decision.
Many thanks
Giovanni
For your info, here is a draft text which we are working on: it should be an announcement of the refereeing piece of news for IPAC17.
We are committed to promote scientific standards and the high quality publication of results. We therefore introduce at IPAC17 a pilot refereeing process, offering an intermediate level of publication, between a non-refereed IPAC paper (default) and a high quality PRAB paper (on invitation only). The refereed IPAC proceeding paper will be refereed by IPAC participants and then sent to a publisher for publication as an open source proceedings paper. The refereed IPAC proceeding paper will be included in the known publication and citation databases. It will fulfil the quality requirements for a recognised publication with most funding agencies, but will carry zero impact factor. We encourage the publication of high quality results in a high impact journal. We see the introduction of refereed proceedings papers as an opportunity for young scientists to be introduced to the refereeing process and as a chance to publish papers that do not fulfil the acceptance criteria for journals (e.g. review papers, technical advancements without novel schemes, new working points for incremental performance improvements, ...).
Authors can volunteer for this new refereeing process at submission of their abstract. Up to 200 papers will be accepted in the pilot process on a first come, first serve basis at time of paper submission. The IPAC paper in the refereeing process will have to be submitted at latest 2 weeks before the usual deadline and refereeing will be completed in almost all cases before the start of the IPAC17 conference.
Giovanni,
Thanks for your reply.
Yes, SPMS already handles refereeing but these changes are for "partial" refereeing. So I believe we understand each other on this enhancement.
Regarding assignment my vision is as follows.
I need to add the “I volunteer” option for individuals. I also need to add the maximum assigned papers
I am nearly finished with the reporting aspect of this request and the display and approval of referees.
The next big step is to complete the paper assignment to a referee process.
Hi Matt. On your point 2, I guess you mean that the SPB/Chair decides to which referee to assign a paper, but then it is the SPMS which makes the notification and handles the process. Is that what you mean? If so, fine.
Before working for a long time to anything which might me not fully clear, do not hesitate asking. For example, on Monday we have a phone conf among the group working in IPAC17 on refereeing. It is a good opportunity to discuss any issue together and promptly.
Point #2, no I mean the SPB/Chair approves who is/is not a referee. SPMS will assign the papers automatically. I can design it so papers are manually assigned but that would be tedious for the chair.
Please send me the time and phone number for your next meeting and I'll try to join you.
Hello Matt. You must have received a specific request by Juliana Pranke this morning concerning IPAC17. Is that ok with you?
I must say that I missed the phone conf of last Monday myself. One output is that it was almost decided to have IOP as a publisher. According to what I read in the phone-conf memo, the paper formatting should be almost equivalent to JACoW's one, which should avoid doubling paper formatting for those authors who choose and are then selected to be refereed. Hope to confirm this soon, but I tend to exclude that the formatting for the journal could be at the expense of the JACoW team in any case!!
Ralph Assman, chair of our working group, would like at this stage to be sure about the availablity of the SPMS tool, in time for the IPAC17 conference deadlines. I intend to summarize these deadlines for you, ... and all of us.
I assume that some points, in our request, may still be open. So maybe we could summarize, for the group, what the status in the development of your work is and whether there are still open points. And then finalize their assesment and solution, perhaps with a specific phone-conf on the technical issues regarding your work. I could try to list the topics/questions, which we might mutually have, so that the phone conf be as fruitful and efficient as possible.
Glad to know about your viewpoint on all this!
Giovanni
Giovanni,
I believe we can roll out with the option for authors to request refereeing, giving us time to complete the requirements for assignment. Are you located in the States? Perhaps you and I can discuss this over the phone.
Matt Arena
Applications Developer & Systems Analyst
Information Systems
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
630 840 4793 office
www.fnal.govhttp://www.fnal.gov/
[logo-doe]http://www.energy.gov/[logo-fra]http://www.fra-hq.org/
From: Giovanni Bisoffi [mailto:bisoffi@users.sf.net]
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 7:10 AM
To: Matthew Arena arenam@fnal.gov
Subject: [jacow-spms:feature-requests] #21 Request to create SPMS tools for peer-reviewing IPAC papers
Hello Matt. You must have received a specific request by Juliana Pranke this morning concerning IPAC17. Is that ok with you?
I must say that I missed the phone conf of last Monday myself. One output is that it was almost decided to have IOP as a publisher. According to what I read in the phone-conf memo, the paper formatting should be almost equivalent to JACoW's one, which should avoid doubling paper formatting for those authors who choose and are then selected to be refereed. Hope to confirm this soon, but I tend to exclude that the formatting for the journal could be at the expense of the JACoW team in any case!!
Ralph Assman, chair of our working group, would like at this stage to be sure about the availablity of the SPMS tool, in time for the IPAC17 conference deadlines. I intend to summarize these deadlines for you, ... and all of us.
I assume that some points, in our request, may still be open. So maybe we could summarize, for the group, what the status in the development of your work is and whether there are still open points. And then finalize their assesment and solution, perhaps with a specific phone-conf on the technical issues regarding your work. I could try to list the topics/questions, which we might mutually have, so that the phone conf be as fruitful and efficient as possible.
Glad to know about your viewpoint on all this!
Giovanni
[feature-requests:#21]https://sourceforge.net/p/jacow-spms/feature-requests/21/ Request to create SPMS tools for peer-reviewing IPAC papers
Status: accepted
Group: Next_Release_(example)
Created: Fri Jul 08, 2016 04:06 PM UTC by Giovanni Bisoffi
Last Updated: Wed Sep 14, 2016 04:22 PM UTC
Owner: Matt Arena
On behalf of the chair of the OC of IPAC17, I submit the following ticket to the kind attention of the JACoW Board of Directors.
It is requested to prepare, on the SPMS platform, a tool for peer reviewing a subset (N=200) of the papers submitted to IPAC17, for their publication on a journal which shall be identified within September 2016. This is intended to be a test which, if successful, should be extended at following IPACs to a larger number of papers, following the agreement of the other regions.
We call this subset of peer-reviewed papers “Subset1”. All other papers, which shall not be peer-reviewed, are called “subset2”.
Draft procedure proposed (open to discussion).
Sent from sourceforge.net because arenam@fnal.govarenam@fnal.gov is subscribed to https://sourceforge.net/p/jacow-spms/feature-requests/
To unsubscribe from further messages, a project admin can change settings at https://sourceforge.net/p/jacow-spms/admin/feature-requests/options. Or, if this is a mailing list, you can unsubscribe from the mailing list.
Related
Feature Requests: #21
No Matt, I am in Italy. But we could organize a phone call taking into account the time difference between us. So I would propose either tomorrow September 22 or Friday September 23, in the European afternoon. We are 7 hours ahead of time, so is 4 pm Europe - 9 am Chicago a good choice?
Tomorrow is best for me; I won’t be in on Friday. Also, I get in at 6:30 so I can meet earlier if you like. I have Skype, which may be easier. My username is matt_arena.
Matt Arena
Applications Developer & Systems Analyst
Information Systems
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
630 840 4793 office
www.fnal.govhttp://www.fnal.gov/
[logo-doe]http://www.energy.gov/[logo-fra]http://www.fra-hq.org/
From: Giovanni Bisoffi [mailto:bisoffi@users.sf.net]
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 8:09 AM
To: [jacow-spms:feature-requests] 21@feature-requests.jacow-spms.p.re.sf.net
Subject: [jacow-spms:feature-requests] #21 Request to create SPMS tools for peer-reviewing IPAC papers
No Matt, I am in Italy. But we could organize a phone call taking into account the time difference between us. So I would propose either tomorrow September 22 or Friday September 23, in the European afternoon. We are 7 hours ahead of time, so is 4 pm Europe - 9 am Chicago a good choice?
[feature-requests:#21]https://sourceforge.net/p/jacow-spms/feature-requests/21/ Request to create SPMS tools for peer-reviewing IPAC papers
Status: accepted
Group: Next_Release_(example)
Created: Fri Jul 08, 2016 04:06 PM UTC by Giovanni Bisoffi
Last Updated: Wed Sep 21, 2016 12:09 PM UTC
Owner: Matt Arena
On behalf of the chair of the OC of IPAC17, I submit the following ticket to the kind attention of the JACoW Board of Directors.
It is requested to prepare, on the SPMS platform, a tool for peer reviewing a subset (N=200) of the papers submitted to IPAC17, for their publication on a journal which shall be identified within September 2016. This is intended to be a test which, if successful, should be extended at following IPACs to a larger number of papers, following the agreement of the other regions.
We call this subset of peer-reviewed papers “Subset1”. All other papers, which shall not be peer-reviewed, are called “subset2”.
Draft procedure proposed (open to discussion).
Sent from sourceforge.net because you indicated interest in https://sourceforge.net/p/jacow-spms/feature-requests/21/
To unsubscribe from further messages, please visit https://sourceforge.net/auth/subscriptions/
Related
Feature Requests: #21
All right. So let's do it at 2.30 pm Italian, 7.30 am Chicago time. Is it ok? My skype name is callimacogb. I just tried to add you as a skype contact.
See you tomorrow at 14:30/7:30.
Ciao,
Matt Arena
Applications Developer & Systems Analyst
Information Systems
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
630 840 4793 office
www.fnal.govhttp://www.fnal.gov/
[logo-doe]http://www.energy.gov/[logo-fra]http://www.fra-hq.org/
From: Giovanni Bisoffi [mailto:bisoffi@users.sf.net]
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 8:36 AM
To: Matthew Arena arenam@fnal.gov
Subject: [jacow-spms:feature-requests] #21 Request to create SPMS tools for peer-reviewing IPAC papers
All right. So let's do it at 2.30 pm Italian, 7.30 am Chicago time. Is it ok? My skype name is callimacogb. I just tried to add you as a skype contact.
[feature-requests:#21]https://sourceforge.net/p/jacow-spms/feature-requests/21/ Request to create SPMS tools for peer-reviewing IPAC papers
Status: accepted
Group: Next_Release_(example)
Created: Fri Jul 08, 2016 04:06 PM UTC by Giovanni Bisoffi
Last Updated: Wed Sep 21, 2016 01:09 PM UTC
Owner: Matt Arena
On behalf of the chair of the OC of IPAC17, I submit the following ticket to the kind attention of the JACoW Board of Directors.
It is requested to prepare, on the SPMS platform, a tool for peer reviewing a subset (N=200) of the papers submitted to IPAC17, for their publication on a journal which shall be identified within September 2016. This is intended to be a test which, if successful, should be extended at following IPACs to a larger number of papers, following the agreement of the other regions.
We call this subset of peer-reviewed papers “Subset1”. All other papers, which shall not be peer-reviewed, are called “subset2”.
Draft procedure proposed (open to discussion).
Sent from sourceforge.net because arenam@fnal.govarenam@fnal.gov is subscribed to https://sourceforge.net/p/jacow-spms/feature-requests/
To unsubscribe from further messages, a project admin can change settings at https://sourceforge.net/p/jacow-spms/admin/feature-requests/options. Or, if this is a mailing list, you can unsubscribe from the mailing list.
Related
Feature Requests: #21
Hello Matt. I am a little late, sorry for that. I am available on skype now.
Hello Matt, here is Juliana's reply on IPAC17 relevant dates:
Dear Giovanni,
the deadlines are as follows:
Abstract submission: 2 December 2016 midnight Central European Time [GMT +01:00].
Paper Submission: 10 May 2017 midnight Central European Time [GMT +02:00].
Best regards,
Juliana
Matt, I think it is useful to share with you the following message in which G. Arduini (IPAC OC Chair) summarizes the status of the work on light-refereeing at IPAC17. I told everyone that I would have shared this with you immediately, so that you can express your important views before we freeze the process.
Thanks!
Giovanni
Message of Gianluigi Arduini (Sep 25, 2016) follows:
Dear all,
First of all again to all of you for the hard work and commitment!!
Please find below my recollection and proposal based on the e-mail exchanges. Along this line I would intend to contact the OC for their rapid approval.
Below some of the forthcoming deadlines.
Deadline 0: Announcement of IPAC17: Monday 10/10 (I think we can still make it)
In IPAC17 webpage on publications we could write the follwoing (I am rephrasing what proposed by Ralph)
The conference proceedings will be published at the JACoW website (link)
We are committed to promote scientific standards and the high quality publication of results. We therefore introduce at IPAC17 a pilot refereeing process, offering an intermediate level of publication, between a non-refereed IPAC paper (that will be published by default in the Conference JACoW) and a high quality PRAB paper. We see the introduction of refereed proceedings papers as an opportunity for young scientists to publish papers that do not fulfil the acceptance criteria for journals (e.g. review papers, technical advancements without novel schemes, new working points for incremental performance improvements, ...).
The refereed IPAC proceeding papers will be refereed by the members of the Scientific Advisory Board, Organizing Committee and Scientific Programme Committee and by volunteers that will be selected by the Scientific Programme Committee. The refereed IPAC proceeding paper will be published as part of the Institute of Physics Journal of Physics: Conference Series (http://conferenceseries.iop.org/content/home ) and therefore visible in the known publication and citation databases (http://conferenceseries.iop.org/content/quick_links/Abstracted%20In ). The IoP Proceedings Licence Terms and Conditions is available at: http://conferenceseries.iop.org/content/quick_links/IOP%20Proceedings%20Licence . Authors can volunteer for this new refereeing process at submission of their abstract. Up to 200 papers will be accepted in the pilot process on a first come, first serve basis at time of paper submission. The IPAC paper in the refereeing process will have to be submitted at least 2 weeks before the usual deadline and refereeing will be completed in almost all cases before the start of the IPAC17 conference.
The authors of a few papers presented at the conference selected by the Scientific Programme Committee will be invited to submit extended versions of their the conference papers for publication in a Special Edition offered by the online journal Physical Review Accelerators and Beams (PRAB) for the Eighth International Particle Accelerator Conference IPAC’17.
Three level of publishing will be therefore offered for the IPAC’17 conference:
Publication of the conference proceedings at the JACoW website (default) – link to the web page with additional information
Publication of the refereed IPAC proceeding papers as part of the Institute of Physics Journal of Physics: Conference Series on a first come, first served basis - link to the web page with additional information (among thers here we have to specify the deadline for the paper submission for refereed papers)
Publication in a Special Edition offered by the online journal Physical Review Accelerators and Beams (PRAB) for the Eighth International Particle Accelerator Conference IPAC’17 (by invitation only) – link to the corresponding web page with additional information (see attachment)
(omissis)
I would propose that we opt for two referees per paper (at least we aim for that). Is it still possible Giovanni? (THIS IS A QUESTION TO YOU MATT, IS IT STILL POSSIBLE? I THINK SO, CORRECT?) This would allow to resolve difficult cases from the beginning. What we do otherwise if we have a rejection form a referee?
The process will be managed by the Main Classification Coordinators
Deadline 1: abstract submission: 2 December 2016 midnight Central European Time [GMT +01:00].
As part of the abstract submission the authors will have the possibility to select the option to ask for IPAC17 refereeing (tick box)
I would separate the action “I am requesting for refereeing” from the action “I am available to act as IPAC17 referee”
Therefore as part of the abstract submission the authors will have the possibility to select the option “I am available to act as IPAC17 referee for the Main Classification in which I have submitted this paper” (tick box). In this case they will be asked to confirm whether they have at least 3 years of professional experience in the accelerator field after his/her highest academic degree (tick box). I would not rely on any implicit commitment (e.g. when requesting to have a paper refereed) as it might create surprises later.
I would also specify that acting as refereeing does not require physical participation to the conference
Deadline 2: 3 April 2017. We inform the selected referees that they might receive papers for refereeing for the Main Classifications for which they signed up and we specify the refereeing criteria. WE ask them to confirm their availability to referee within 2 weeks (17 April 2017)
Deadline 3: 24 April 2017. Deadline for the submission of the papers for referring (I think it is better to give us a couple of days more)
The first come for each main classification (I would fix a percentage according to the abstract submission per main classification to give a total of about 200 as a goal).
Deadline 4: 26 April 2017. Deadline for the assignment of papers to referees by the Main Classification Coordinators
Deadline 5: 3 May 2017. Deadline for the submission of referee reports to the Main Classification coordinators and for possible request of reviewing some parts by the authors.
Deadline 6: 10 May 2017. Decision from the Main Classification Coordinators concerning the approval/refusal of the papers for publication in the refereed part based on feedback from referees on response of the authors to the observations from the referees
Deadline 7: 10 May 2017 midnight Central European Time [GMT +02:00]. (Non-refereed) paper submission
Deadline 8: 13 May 2017. Decision form the Scientific Programme Committee Chair concerning the approval/refusal of the papers in difficult cases. Authors are informed on the outcome.
Deadline 9: 14 May 2017. Start of the conference
Cheers
Gianluigi
PS for Mike: I think that in the next couple of weeks we will have to contact the SAB members asking their availability for refereeing the papers of IPAC’17. WE will have to provide a Table with the Main Classifications where they are experts (Mike I think you had created that table).
I would propose that we opt for two referees per paper (at least we aim for that). Is it still possible Giovanni? (THIS IS A QUESTION TO YOU MATT, IS IT STILL POSSIBLE? I THINK SO, CORRECT?) This would allow to resolve difficult cases from the beginning. What we do otherwise if we have a rejection form a referee?
n SPMS can have more than one referee per paper, however there is only one referee status. Therefore, the referees must be in sync, or at least understand if referee #1 rejects the paper that referee #2 should not change the status to accept. If both referees accept then both should indicate so.
Therefore as part of the abstract submission the authors will have the possibility to select the option “I am available to act as IPAC17 referee for the Main Classification in which I have submitted this paper” (tick box). In this case they will be asked to confirm whether they have at least 3 years of professional experience in the accelerator field after his/her highest academic degree (tick box). I would not rely on any implicit commitment (e.g. when requesting to have a paper refereed) as it might create surprises later.
n I need to add this to the code but it will be ready by the call for abstracts.
I would also specify that acting as refereeing does not require physical participation to the conference
n SPMS is setup to accept additional referees, outside of the “volunteers.” This will require some manual data entry but should not be too burdensome.
The first come for each main classification (I would fix a percentage according to the abstract submission per main classification to give a total of about 200 as a goal).
n I don’t understand this statement. What does it mean for SPMS? Is it a strict first-come-first-served. Or, is it proportional to the number of papers in each main classification?
Matt Arena
Applications Developer & Systems Analyst
Information Systems
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
630 840 4793 office
www.fnal.govhttp://www.fnal.gov/
[logo-doe]http://www.energy.gov/[logo-fra]http://www.fra-hq.org/
From: Giovanni Bisoffi [mailto:bisoffi@users.sf.net]
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2016 8:55 AM
To: [jacow-spms:feature-requests] 21@feature-requests.jacow-spms.p.re.sf.net
Subject: [jacow-spms:feature-requests] #21 Request to create SPMS tools for peer-reviewing IPAC papers
Matt, I think it is useful to share with you the following message in which G. Arduini (IPAC OC Chair) summarizes the status of the work on light-refereeing at IPAC17. I told everyone that I would have shared this with you immediately, so that you can express your important views before we freeze the process.
Thanks!
Giovanni
Message of Gianluigi Arduini (Sep 25, 2016) follows:
Dear all,
First of all again to all of you for the hard work and commitment!!
Please find below my recollection and proposal based on the e-mail exchanges. Along this line I would intend to contact the OC for their rapid approval.
Below some of the forthcoming deadlines.
Deadline 0: Announcement of IPAC17: Monday 10/10 (I think we can still make it)
In IPAC17 webpage on publications we could write the follwoing (I am rephrasing what proposed by Ralph)
The conference proceedings will be published at the JACoW website (link)
We are committed to promote scientific standards and the high quality publication of results. We therefore introduce at IPAC17 a pilot refereeing process, offering an intermediate level of publication, between a non-refereed IPAC paper (that will be published by default in the Conference JACoW) and a high quality PRAB paper. We see the introduction of refereed proceedings papers as an opportunity for young scientists to publish papers that do not fulfil the acceptance criteria for journals (e.g. review papers, technical advancements without novel schemes, new working points for incremental performance improvements, ...).
The refereed IPAC proceeding papers will be refereed by the members of the Scientific Advisory Board, Organizing Committee and Scientific Programme Committee and by volunteers that will be selected by the Scientific Programme Committee. The refereed IPAC proceeding paper will be published as part of the Institute of Physics Journal of Physics: Conference Series (http://conferenceseries.iop.org/content/home ) and therefore visible in the known publication and citation databases (http://conferenceseries.iop.org/content/quick_links/Abstracted%20In ). The IoP Proceedings Licence Terms and Conditions is available at: http://conferenceseries.iop.org/content/quick_links/IOP%20Proceedings%20Licence . Authors can volunteer for this new refereeing process at submission of their abstract. Up to 200 papers will be accepted in the pilot process on a first come, first serve basis at time of paper submission. The IPAC paper in the refereeing process will have to be submitted at least 2 weeks before the usual deadline and refereeing will be completed in almost all cases before the start of the IPAC17 conference.
The authors of a few papers presented at the conference selected by the Scientific Programme Committee will be invited to submit extended versions of their the conference papers for publication in a Special Edition offered by the online journal Physical Review Accelerators and Beams (PRAB) for the Eighth International Particle Accelerator Conference IPAC’17.
Three level of publishing will be therefore offered for the IPAC’17 conference:
· Publication of the conference proceedings at the JACoW website (default) – link to the web page with additional information
· Publication of the refereed IPAC proceeding papers as part of the Institute of Physics Journal of Physics: Conference Series on a first come, first served basis - link to the web page with additional information (among thers here we have to specify the deadline for the paper submission for refereed papers)
· Publication in a Special Edition offered by the online journal Physical Review Accelerators and Beams (PRAB) for the Eighth International Particle Accelerator Conference IPAC’17 (by invitation only) – link to the corresponding web page with additional information (see attachment)
(omissis)
I would propose that we opt for two referees per paper (at least we aim for that). Is it still possible Giovanni? (THIS IS A QUESTION TO YOU MATT, IS IT STILL POSSIBLE? I THINK SO, CORRECT?) This would allow to resolve difficult cases from the beginning. What we do otherwise if we have a rejection form a referee?
The process will be managed by the Main Classification Coordinators
Deadline 1: abstract submission: 2 December 2016 midnight Central European Time [GMT +01:00].
As part of the abstract submission the authors will have the possibility to select the option to ask for IPAC17 refereeing (tick box)
I would separate the action “I am requesting for refereeing” from the action “I am available to act as IPAC17 referee”
Therefore as part of the abstract submission the authors will have the possibility to select the option “I am available to act as IPAC17 referee for the Main Classification in which I have submitted this paper” (tick box). In this case they will be asked to confirm whether they have at least 3 years of professional experience in the accelerator field after his/her highest academic degree (tick box). I would not rely on any implicit commitment (e.g. when requesting to have a paper refereed) as it might create surprises later.
I would also specify that acting as refereeing does not require physical participation to the conference
Deadline 2: 3 April 2017. We inform the selected referees that they might receive papers for refereeing for the Main Classifications for which they signed up and we specify the refereeing criteria. WE ask them to confirm their availability to referee within 2 weeks (17 April 2017)
Deadline 3: 24 April 2017. Deadline for the submission of the papers for referring (I think it is better to give us a couple of days more)
The first come for each main classification (I would fix a percentage according to the abstract submission per main classification to give a total of about 200 as a goal).
Deadline 4: 26 April 2017. Deadline for the assignment of papers to referees by the Main Classification Coordinators
Deadline 5: 3 May 2017. Deadline for the submission of referee reports to the Main Classification coordinators and for possible request of reviewing some parts by the authors.
Deadline 6: 10 May 2017. Decision from the Main Classification Coordinators concerning the approval/refusal of the papers for publication in the refereed part based on feedback from referees on response of the authors to the observations from the referees
Deadline 7: 10 May 2017 midnight Central European Time [GMT +02:00]. (Non-refereed) paper submission
Deadline 8: 13 May 2017. Decision form the Scientific Programme Committee Chair concerning the approval/refusal of the papers in difficult cases. Authors are informed on the outcome.
Deadline 9: 14 May 2017. Start of the conference
Cheers
Gianluigi
PS for Mike: I think that in the next couple of weeks we will have to contact the SAB members asking their availability for refereeing the papers of IPAC’17. WE will have to provide a Table with the Main Classifications where they are experts (Mike I think you had created that table).
[feature-requests:#21]https://sourceforge.net/p/jacow-spms/feature-requests/21/ Request to create SPMS tools for peer-reviewing IPAC papers
Status: accepted
Group: Next_Release_(example)
Created: Fri Jul 08, 2016 04:06 PM UTC by Giovanni Bisoffi
Last Updated: Mon Sep 26, 2016 01:49 PM UTC
Owner: Matt Arena
On behalf of the chair of the OC of IPAC17, I submit the following ticket to the kind attention of the JACoW Board of Directors.
It is requested to prepare, on the SPMS platform, a tool for peer reviewing a subset (N=200) of the papers submitted to IPAC17, for their publication on a journal which shall be identified within September 2016. This is intended to be a test which, if successful, should be extended at following IPACs to a larger number of papers, following the agreement of the other regions.
We call this subset of peer-reviewed papers “Subset1”. All other papers, which shall not be peer-reviewed, are called “subset2”.
Draft procedure proposed (open to discussion).
Sent from sourceforge.net because you indicated interest in https://sourceforge.net/p/jacow-spms/feature-requests/21/
To unsubscribe from further messages, please visit https://sourceforge.net/auth/subscriptions/
Related
Feature Requests: #21
I forwarded your points to the working group. So far just one reply by G. Arduini. Referees not partcipating in the conference would be people who submitted a paper but will not be at IPAC17: so they would be in the database.
Giovanni,
I granted full access to you on the test system where I'm developing the changes for peer review. Please go to https://oraweb.cern.ch/pls/jacow_new_conf_debug/jacow.html to view/test the data entry for sumitting abstracts, requesting peer review and volunteering to be a referee. Thank you.
Matt, tkanks. At the moment I have difficulties in retrieving my password to get to that web page. As son as I fix this point I will go through it and get back to you.
Meanwhile you might be interested in the official message sent by Gianluigi Arduini to the IPAC17 OC, following the draft which I sent you a few days ago. I deleted a few sentence which might be a little confidential (es. budget offers of the different journals, similar).
Dear members of the IPAC'17 Organizing Committee,
Following the discussions during the OC-SPC/1 and SPC/2 (see our e-mail on 7/6/2016) the task force on referring of IPAC'17 papers has progressed in the definition of the proposals that we would like to implement for IPAC'17 asking for your approval (by Wednesday 5/10).
Three level of publishing will be therefore offered for the IPAC'17 conference:
The refereed IPAC proceeding papers will be refereed by the members of the Scientific Advisory Board, Organizing Committee and Scientific Programme Committee and by volunteers that will be selected by the Scientific Programme Committee (each paper will be reviewed by two referees). The refereed IPAC proceeding paper will be published as part of the Institute of Physics Journal of Physics: Conference Series (http://conferenceseries.iop.org/content/home) and therefore visible in the known publication and citation databases (http://conferenceseries.iop.org/content/quick_links/Abstracted%20In). The IoP Proceedings Licence Terms and Conditions is available at: http://conferenceseries.iop.org/content/quick_links/IOP%20Proceedings%20Licence.
IoP offers the following advantages:
(omissis)
We have identified the following deadlines
As part of the abstract submission the authors will have the possibility to:
o Request that their paper is referred
o Manifest their availability for refereeing other papers in the Main Classification in which they have submitted their paper
In addition to your approval we ask also for your commitment to the above tasks.
Soon we will also contact the SAB members to ask their collaboration for the refereeing process.
We take here the opportunity to thank the task force for the work done so far!!
Looking forward for your reply by Wednesday 5th October 2016.
Best regards
Gianluigi Arduini, OC Chair IPAC'17
Mike Seidel, SPC Chair IPAC'17
Hi Matt, Juliana sent me an email in which she wanted **to be sure that you finalized everything which needs to be done for the Peer Reviewing in the abstract submission form. **
I admit I was overcommitted in the last week so was unable to check the web page you sent me. My problem is that I cannot access such page with my JACoW credentials. When I put my email address and ask to put a new password I get the following message:
Email Address Found
According to our records your email address is: bisoffi@lnl.infn.it . You will receive an email with instructions to reset your password.
BUT THEN I DO NOT RECEIVE ANY EMAILS.
Can you perhaps fix this?
Hello Giovanni,
I apologize for the delayed response as I was out sick most of last week. I did manage to apply the patch to allow users to request peer review and volunteer to be reviewers. As far as your credentials on the test system; although I cannot determine your password I did verify it is the same one used to access every other JACoW instance. The username is BISOFFI.
Matt Arena
Applications Developer & Systems Analyst
Information Systems
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
630 840 4793 office
www.fnal.govhttp://www.fnal.gov/
[logo-doe]http://www.energy.gov/[logo-fra]http://www.fra-hq.org/
From: Giovanni Bisoffi [mailto:bisoffi@users.sf.net]
Sent: Friday, October 07, 2016 8:51 AM
To: [jacow-spms:feature-requests] 21@feature-requests.jacow-spms.p.re.sf.net
Subject: [jacow-spms:feature-requests] #21 Request to create SPMS tools for peer-reviewing IPAC papers
Hi Matt, Juliana sent me an email in which she wanted to be sure that you finalized everything which needs to be done for the Peer Reviewing in the abstract submission form.
I admit I was overcommitted in the last week so was unable to check the web page you sent me. My problem is that I cannot access such page with my JACoW credentials. When I put my email address and ask to put a new password I get the following message:
Email Address Found
According to our records your email address is: bisoffi@lnl.infn.itbisoffi@lnl.infn.it . You will receive an email with instructions to reset your password.
BUT THEN I DO NOT RECEIVE ANY EMAILS.
Can you perhaps fix this?
[feature-requests:#21]https://sourceforge.net/p/jacow-spms/feature-requests/21/ Request to create SPMS tools for peer-reviewing IPAC papers
Status: accepted
Group: Next_Release_(example)
Created: Fri Jul 08, 2016 04:06 PM UTC by Giovanni Bisoffi
Last Updated: Fri Sep 30, 2016 07:16 PM UTC
Owner: Matt Arena
On behalf of the chair of the OC of IPAC17, I submit the following ticket to the kind attention of the JACoW Board of Directors.
It is requested to prepare, on the SPMS platform, a tool for peer reviewing a subset (N=200) of the papers submitted to IPAC17, for their publication on a journal which shall be identified within September 2016. This is intended to be a test which, if successful, should be extended at following IPACs to a larger number of papers, following the agreement of the other regions.
We call this subset of peer-reviewed papers “Subset1”. All other papers, which shall not be peer-reviewed, are called “subset2”.
Draft procedure proposed (open to discussion).
Sent from sourceforge.net because you indicated interest in https://sourceforge.net/p/jacow-spms/feature-requests/21/
To unsubscribe from further messages, please visit https://sourceforge.net/auth/subscriptions/
Related
Feature Requests: #21